Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would anyone leave the SEC, especially the East?
Why would anyone leave the SEC, especially the East?
Boren cooled off on the Big XII expansion talk not long after OU got their ass handed to them by Houston.
I think the Big 12 is doomed whether they expand or not. The old model of sticking to your area for teams for ease of travel doesn't work for football money and football money is what is driving conference expansion. Ultimately you need to create new viewership not repeat old viewership to justify more money from tv and internet sources. And most fans don't just watch their team, but their it instate rivals as well (to see them lose).
Sooner or later the ACC will expand into Texas, hopefully with UTexas but I could see Houston as a target as well. From the ACC perspective Texas and Houston would be who I want long term, but I could see us taking four Texas teams (Texas, Texas Tech, Houston and Baylor or TCU) and either Cincy, UConn or Navy to go with Notre Dame to get to a high $$$ 20 team superconference.
I've been following realignment for years, and I'm deeply embedded in OU's main expansion forum.
The bottom line is, it's a mess with no easy answers, and no easy exit plan.
Up until a few weeks ago, I was pretty sure that the Big 12 would add two, extend their TV deal and GOR and get a big raise, and the world would move on. I've always thought that a stable Big 12 best served all it's members.
I still think that, but the Big 12 is just so unbelievably dysfunctional, I'm less sure of that than ever. This expansion process for them has been the biggest clown show in the history of college sports, and it's just their latest. There's no analogue in any other conference. I'm beginning to come around to the idea that they are just fundamentally not viable.
With all their entanglements among members, there's no easy way to dissolve the conference and get to the 4 x 16 model people seem to want. The Big 10 isn't going to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, the SEC isn't taking Oklahoma State without Oklahoma, Kansas is tied to KSU, etc. The Big 12 needs 8 votes to dissolve the conference, which would be the only way out of the GOR.
In my opinion, the best way out would involve 18 team conferences. Texas, TT, TCU, KSU to the ACC. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WVU and Kansas to the SEC. That preserves the most relationships, restores/preserves some great rivalries, etc.
I don't see a world where Texas alone joins the ACC, even if ND agrees to partner. There's just no easy resolution in parsing out the Big 12.
I've been hoping for this. Would it be far-fetched for both to come to the ACC? It allows them to have a relatively close conference foe.
They'd be numbers 15 and 16 with Notre Dame still holding out.
Since you've been a part of the conversation over there, what's the logic behind those groupings? Texas, Baylor, and TCU fit nicely with ACC academics while WVU fits geographically and shares a rivalry with Pitt (not sure about the VA schools).
Since you've been a part of the conversation over there, what's the logic behind those groupings? Texas, Baylor, and TCU fit nicely with ACC academics while WVU fits geographically and shares a rivalry with Pitt (not sure about the VA schools).
Sorry for not being clear...that premise is mine, and mine alone, and I've thrown it out a few places and it gets zero traction. For a myriad of reasonable reasons. 18 team conferences are not appealing, KU doesn't fit in the SEC, etc. It's just that there's no way to get to an ideal.
As for the conversation over there, it's all over the place, between people that want the PAC, the B1G or the SEC. A lot of debate about how tied Oklahoma is or should be to Texas and Oklahoma State. The discussion has been going on for years, and there's still no consensus on where they should go, even if they were free to go. Add in the entanglements, and there's to clear road map.
Since you've been a part of the conversation over there, what's the logic behind those groupings? Texas, Baylor, and TCU fit nicely with ACC academics while WVU fits geographically and shares a rivalry with Pitt (not sure about the VA schools).
Sorry for not being clear...that premise is mine, and mine alone, and I've thrown it out a few places and it gets zero traction. For a myriad of reasonable reasons. 18 team conferences are not appealing, KU doesn't fit in the SEC, etc. It's just that there's no way to get to an ideal.
As for the conversation over there, it's all over the place, between people that want the PAC, the B1G or the SEC. A lot of debate about how tied Oklahoma is or should be to Texas and Oklahoma State. The discussion has been going on for years, and there's still no consensus on where they should go, even if they were free to go. Add in the entanglements, and there's to clear road map.
In listening to my well heeled and connected OU booster FIL, if the Big Ten offers they're a done deal to go. Despite rumours and press to the contrary, they did NOT get an invite along with Nebraska. The Big Ten had eyes on bigger prizes at that moment as they were convinced they were getting UVA and pursuing Texas hard core.
Now if Texas gets into the Big Ten, I do think in a pique of rage that OU just takes its ball and goes to the SEC.
Texas is pretty protective of Texas Tech as they are both state schools. Unless Texas Tech can be guaranteed a spot in the PAC-12 (which makes sense, the PAC-12 has run out of ideal expansion candidates at 12 unless it can move into Texas), I don't see Texas moving to a conference without TT.
I think that the B1G is the desire of the OU administrators, by far.
However, I think there is actually a fair amount of concern among boosters about going to the B1G WITHOUT Texas. There is some concern that having only one game in Texas/vs a Texas school each year is bad news for OU recruiting. The lack of success for Nebraska (at least before this season) after separating from Texas gives pause
OU doesn't fit the academic profile the B1G covets. Of the last four schools that joined the B1G (Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland), three belong to the AAU. Nebraksa lost their AAU status in 2011.
You do make a good point about the concern for OU recruiting if they went to the B1G. They saw what happened to Nebraska once they moved to the B1G and, being almost completely dependent on Texas recruits themselves, it wouldn't be a wise move for them.
Thanks... didn't read article.UT equals Texas not Tennessee
Agree. A lot of talk though is that the B1G is willing to make an AAU exception for OU. Especially if paired with an AAU school in KU and/or UT.
It's been confirmed that the B1G at least did due diligence on OU, which indicates at least some flexibility there. But at the end of the day, it will be up to the presidents, so I agree it could still be an issue.
I think the fact that the ACC schools are all off limits now, is leaving the general consensus that the B1G would make an exception for OU. The alternatives would be Iowa State or University of Buffalo. I think the AAU thing was a bigger obstacle when presidents might have been holding out for Virginia or GT or UNC.
But it might not be the slam dunk that some people think.
Agree. A lot of talk though is that the B1G is willing to make an AAU exception for OU. Especially if paired with an AAU school in KU and/or UT.
It's been confirmed that the B1G at least did due diligence on OU, which indicates at least some flexibility there. But at the end of the day, it will be up to the presidents, so I agree it could still be an issue.
I think the fact that the ACC schools are all off limits now, is leaving the general consensus that the B1G would make an exception for OU. The alternatives would be Iowa State or University of Buffalo. I think the AAU thing was a bigger obstacle when presidents might have been holding out for Virginia or GT or UNC.
But it might not be the slam dunk that some people think.
Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied at 111 in US News now, so it's not like there's any real drop off. Kansas is 118th. FSU is currently 92.
Texas carries the baggage of the Longhorn network. I would hope that a condition of joining the conference would be their ACC revenue share lowered by Network revenue....or drop the network all together. I bet ESPN would gladly sign off on that. I like the idea of everyone being equal partners in the conference. Playing favorites is one of the main reasons the Big 12 is in the sad shape it's in.
Texas is a good fit for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC 12. I'm not sure they (Horns) are going to be able to call the shots. They have some power, but not like they did when they were 4 or 5 years removed from a national championship. I hope we can add them to the ACC.
One thing I've found is that people in Big 12 country think that Texas is the equal of Notre Dame in stature and value and national brand. I think there's a major disconnect there...I keep telling them that unless Texas is contending for a national title, nobody gives a damn about Texas on the east coast, in any sport. It's not the same as ND's coast to coast fan base (although even that is diminishing every decade in my mind). Everyone in the country either roots for Notre Dame, or roots against them, but they pay some attention. I just don't think Texas (or any other brand) is in that category.
I'm 44. In the lifetime of my fandom, Texas was an elite player for eight years, between 2001-2009. They were mostly trash before, and trash after. To me, Oklahoma's national brand kicks the hell out of Texas'.
Please don't get me wrong...Texas is a great brand and a college football blue blood. But I don't think they have the clout to dictate to the ACC or PAC they way they might think they do. But I'm not sure they see it that way.
I'm pretty sure apparel sales would say otherwise about UT. They aren't ND (no one is) but they are certainly a huge brand. Why do you think there is a "Longhorn Network" and not a "Sooner Network?"
I'm pretty sure apparel sales would say otherwise about UT. They aren't ND (no one is) but they are certainly a huge brand. Why do you think there is a "Longhorn Network" and not a "Sooner Network?"
They are a gigantic brand, mainly they are the far and away biggest brand in the biggest college football state. That's awesome.
I'm not disparaging Texas, they are an elite brand, but they are not Notre Dame. The TV ratings more than bear that out. But I think they think they ARE the equal of Notre Dame, and that's probably going to make any attempt for a conference to absorb them more difficult.
doubt it.I think the Big 12 is doomed whether they expand or not. The old model of sticking to your area for teams for ease of travel doesn't work for football money and football money is what is driving conference expansion. Ultimately you need to create new viewership not repeat old viewership to justify more money from tv and internet sources. And most fans don't just watch their team, but their it instate rivals as well (to see them lose).
Sooner or later the ACC will expand into Texas, hopefully with UTexas but I could see Houston as a target as well. From the ACC perspective Texas and Houston would be who I want long term, but I could see us taking four Texas teams (Texas, Texas Tech, Houston and Baylor or TCU) and either Cincy, UConn or Navy to go with Notre Dame to get to a high $$$ 20 team superconference.
That's exactly what I said in the post you're responding to.
Also, you used a bunch of examples of programs that would be equally as big of a football game as Texas...but none of those programs are currently in the ACC. So from an ACC standpoint, I think it would be a pretty spectacular addition.
Ok, we're on the same page, I think they'd be a great addition too.
My premise was that I think one obstacle to their addition is their belief that they are a big enough deal to dictate unrealistic terms. Like, "If the ACC takes TCU and Baylor as full members, we will join as non-football members with a ND type deal." They may not be able to negotiate the deal they think they will with the ACC, that's all.
Ok, we're on the same page, I think they'd be a great addition too.
My premise was that I think one obstacle to their addition is their belief that they are a big enough deal to dictate unrealistic terms. Like, "If the ACC takes TCU and Baylor as full members, we will join as non-football members with a ND type deal." They may not be able to negotiate the deal they think they will with the ACC, that's all.
From reading the Notre Dame boards there's starting to be a consensus they should join a conference fully themselves. There's some dumb dumbs who still want to join the Big Ten not realising that immediately keeps them trapped in the Rust Belt and relegated to Northwestern status but most are now coming around to the ACC being an ideal spot for them.
Have a friend who is, along with his very well connected father, ND alums and big boosters. They say ND wil join ACC in full, only a matter of time.
They have been VERY pleased with the basketball, women's athletics, helping their baseball, and direction that ACC is going in. It's either Indy or ACC for them.
Two things of note:
1. Bringing in Navy (a move I would LOVE) would expedite process of ND joining in full.
2. Staying with 8 conference games is MUCH preferred by them. Would be a backwards step in our pursuit of ND if we went to 9.